Forgive me if this should be in the dev section, but I recently discovered
there was a Csound 6 in development and I was curious about a few things. I
tried searching, not hard I'll admit, and found some information on Csound 6
but none of them pertained to my questions.

1. I don't know if this already is already the case with previous versions,
but when Csound 6 is released, will it still be reliant on a score? I ask
because I'm having a hard time seeing the point of having to write one. I've
been learning Supercollider for about a month or two so my opinions are
based off of the fact that scores (or patterns I'm told) are optional. While
I like Supercollider more than Csound, I see Csound as the more powerful and
versatile of the two. If a score were optional I will put my Supercollider
book down and learn Csound right now. If there is a logical reason for
integrating a score in Csound then I'll probably just hold my tongue and
switch anyway.

2. This doesn't pertain to Csound 6 specifically, but is there going to be
support for C#, both .net and mono framework? How difficult would it be to
integrate Csound with C#?

3. I feel stupid for asking this one because I think I found the answer, but
what are the most prominent changes or additions to Csound 6? Forgive me for
this question but I couldn't find much information on Csound 6.



--
View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Csound-6-questions-tp5714353.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

The score is optional in Csound 5 already. 

On 21 Jul 2012, at 22:35, John Colgrove wrote:

> 1. I don't know if this already is already the case with previous versions,
> but when Csound 6 is released, will it still be reliant on a score? I ask
> because I'm having a hard time seeing the point of having to write one. I've
> been learning Supercollider for about a month or two so my opinions are
> based off of the fact that scores (or patterns I'm told) are optional. While
> I like Supercollider more than Csound, I see Csound as the more powerful and
> versatile of the two. If a score were optional I will put my Supercollider
> book down and learn Csound right now. If there is a logical reason for
> integrating a score in Csound then I'll probably just hold my tongue and
> switch anyway.

Dr Victor Lazzarini
Senior Lecturer
Dept. of Music
NUI Maynooth Ireland
tel.: +353 1 708 3545
Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie

Really? I guess I never realized that. Thank you for the clarification. I'll
more than likely make the switch to Csound.



--
View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Csound-6-questions-tp5714353p5714367.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

I have the opposite approach; I depend on the score for everything I do. 
One of these is sonification of very large data sets, soemtimes 
condensing 100s (even 1000s) of events into a few seconds; this could be 
compared to granular synthesis where every score event is a grain. I 
also, as it happens have found the combination of automatic score 
sorting, and the section directive, immensely useful; so I can write 500 
score events spanning 0-5 seconds, mark a new section, and write another 
500 over the same time span, the result to be rendered together; and so 
on. Needless to say Csound cannot (at least on machines I have access 
to)  render all this in real time. I cannot even imagine how I would do 
this without a substantial score facility of this kind; short of course 
of writing my own software!

Richard Dobson




On 23/07/2012 21:47, Rory Walsh wrote:
> Just to add that the only score I've ever written in Csound was for an
> assignment that was due in one of Victor's classes. Then I discovered
> real time Csound and Cecilia and never used the score again!
>
> On Sunday, 22 July 2012, John Colgrove  > wrote:
>  > Really? I guess I never realized that. Thank you for the
> clarification. I'll
>  > more than likely make the switch to Csound.
>  >
>  >

just out of curiousity: why do you consider Csound "as the more powerful and
versatile", compared to SC? are there any specific aspects or experiences?


Am 22.07.2012 02:46, schrieb John Colgrove:
> Really? I guess I never realized that. Thank you for the clarification. I'll
> more than likely make the switch to Csound.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Csound-6-questions-tp5714353p5714367.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>

A big thing for me, with Csound, is the fact there are opcodes wrappers for
different languages. To me that makes csound not only more versatile but
more powerful. Of course that depends on if the user plans on using one or
more of the languages and I definitely will.

Another thing is the editor. I really do dislike the editor in
supercollider. To me it felt more like a text editor. I like Csound's
editors better not only because of the variety, but because of the features.
Csound's editors seemed more complete in that area.

There is one more thing that made Csound more powerful but I can't quite
recall what it was. I read it on the Supercollider list. I can't remember it
for the life of me. I'll have to google it.

Supercollider has a lot going for it and I do plan on going back, but it
needs a better editor first.



--
View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Csound-6-questions-tp5714353p5714430.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

yes - why not going to and fro ...
certainly we should learn from features which are nice in super 
collider, and which csound users miss.
so, thanks for the reply -
	joachim


Am 26.07.2012 10:39, schrieb John Colgrove:
> A big thing for me, with Csound, is the fact there are opcodes wrappers for
> different languages. To me that makes csound not only more versatile but
> more powerful. Of course that depends on if the user plans on using one or
> more of the languages and I definitely will.
>
> Another thing is the editor. I really do dislike the editor in
> supercollider. To me it felt more like a text editor. I like Csound's
> editors better not only because of the variety, but because of the features.
> Csound's editors seemed more complete in that area.
>
> There is one more thing that made Csound more powerful but I can't quite
> recall what it was. I read it on the Supercollider list. I can't remember it
> for the life of me. I'll have to google it.
>
> Supercollider has a lot going for it and I do plan on going back, but it
> needs a better editor first.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Csound-6-questions-tp5714353p5714430.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>

Another thing I like about Csound is the fact that you can integrate it with
pd or max/msp/jitter. One could say that you are getting the best of both
worlds in that respect. I will say that one thing I love about Supercollider
are the local host and internal servers. Although I don't know much about
the purpose behind the servers, I've always been fascinated with that. One
thing I often hear, mainly on the supercollider list, is Supercollider beats
Csound when it comes to live composition but Csound beats supercollider with
non-realtime synthesis (I could be getting the term wrong so feel free to
correct me).

In both respects, I can see why but more the latter than the former. From
what I've researched, Csound has more options available to choose from, such
as Scanned Synthesis, which I plan on using. I don't know much on live
composition so I really cannot form an accurate opinion. If I remember
correctly the list on supercollider thinks that users are tied to the score,
which I thought as well. If I also remember correctly, the supercollider
list's reasoning for live composition being better than csound specifically
dealt with csound's score.

Another thing I always liked in Supercollider were the GUI options. Some of
them seem to be mac specific, but that doesn't bother me considering I have
a mac and a windows computer.

I do have one question. Is it possible to integrate Csound with
supercollider? I've always been fascinated with that. Unfortunately I don't
have the skills or knowledge to bother attempting such a thing. Rather then
integrating Csound with supercollider, would it be possible through OSC?


joachim-3 wrote
> 
> yes - why not going to and fro ...
> certainly we should learn from features which are nice in super 
> collider, and which csound users miss.
> so, thanks for the reply -
> 	joachim
> 
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@.ac with body "unsubscribe csound"
> 




--
View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Csound-6-questions-tp5714353p5714466.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

yes, your can send OSC from super collider to csound (or vice versa).
as to the live options of csound: in my opinion they are much better 
than their reputation. i have written an article about my experiences 
which will appear in the next Csound Journal, and i know that there are 
many people on this list here using csound in realtime contextes. it's 
just the case that sc, pd and max are by design meant for realtime 
interaction, whereas csound's original design is a non realtime one. but 
the performance is excellent.


Am 28.07.2012 00:20, schrieb John Colgrove:
> Another thing I like about Csound is the fact that you can integrate it with
> pd or max/msp/jitter. One could say that you are getting the best of both
> worlds in that respect. I will say that one thing I love about Supercollider
> are the local host and internal servers. Although I don't know much about
> the purpose behind the servers, I've always been fascinated with that. One
> thing I often hear, mainly on the supercollider list, is Supercollider beats
> Csound when it comes to live composition but Csound beats supercollider with
> non-realtime synthesis (I could be getting the term wrong so feel free to
> correct me).
>
> In both respects, I can see why but more the latter than the former. From
> what I've researched, Csound has more options available to choose from, such
> as Scanned Synthesis, which I plan on using. I don't know much on live
> composition so I really cannot form an accurate opinion. If I remember
> correctly the list on supercollider thinks that users are tied to the score,
> which I thought as well. If I also remember correctly, the supercollider
> list's reasoning for live composition being better than csound specifically
> dealt with csound's score.
>
> Another thing I always liked in Supercollider were the GUI options. Some of
> them seem to be mac specific, but that doesn't bother me considering I have
> a mac and a windows computer.
>
> I do have one question. Is it possible to integrate Csound with
> supercollider? I've always been fascinated with that. Unfortunately I don't
> have the skills or knowledge to bother attempting such a thing. Rather then
> integrating Csound with supercollider, would it be possible through OSC?
>
>
> joachim-3 wrote
>>
>> yes - why not going to and fro ...
>> certainly we should learn from features which are nice in super
>> collider, and which csound users miss.
>> so, thanks for the reply -
>> 	joachim
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@.ac with body "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/Csound-6-questions-tp5714353p5714466.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>